[AKAKBUCK]

First, thanks for responding. I'll apologize in advance for breaking your response up a little, here.

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

Certainly, I realize that Juan Cole isn't giving the Iraqi view (as if there is such as thing). I was speaking of putting it into a larger context where they are the primary players on the field. We can move all the troops we want into the country, but you can't impose democracy at gun point. Anyways, I'm just trying to move the debate past the current prevailing thinking that "the surge worked" and everything is going swimmingly now..

Is that the prevailing thinking? I'm not sure it isn't, but, I'm not sure it is either. Maybe part of the problem with "you can't impose democracy at gun point" is that we're not trying to? I'm not sure, really, but, maybe the point you make later about Afghanistan about the government standing up is more true for Iraq. Obama is floating around the notion that the surge has reduced violence but hasn't produced the political results desired. And, the part of me that says, "I want this to be over" (And, really there is that part of me) really worries about that point. But, is that valid? Should we be imposing democracy at gunpoint? Apart from the Powell doctrine, he also said, "You break it, you bought it"-- I'm pretty sure most of us have some buyers remorse at this point. But, there's no lemon law that I'm aware of in these cases.

I mean, we've only seen a couple of months of strong "success" which could very easily be undone. I actually happen to agree with the idea of the surge and thought it should have been done in conjunction with the COIN (counterinsurgency strategy) a long time before it was actually done.

Timing aside, the surge happened when it did. I guess I'll use the characterization of "Strong success." (your words) So, I guess my question is, "If it could very easily be undone"-- and the current strategy is a strong success, why change the strategy? And why move the discussion past "the surge worked" (Especially if its more correct to say, "The surge is working"). I think, kind of the unfortunate thing here is that the "progress" in Iraq is sort of poorly timed vs. the election cycle. If the election was last November or (optimistically) next November, the debate is probably much different. But, I think the question has to be asked, if things are going in some more palatable direction, should either candidate want to significantly change that. (I realize the cut bait crowd is out there, and I'll get to that option later.)

Although I think the war was a bad choice, I thought we should have followed the Powell Doctrine and entered with overwhelming force from day one and provided the securest environment possible for the Iraqis to work through the political process. I blame dip[censored]s Cheney and Rumsfeld for that one.

Hate to say woulda, shoulda, coulda... but... you know.

Anyways, we have hit a point where it is up to the Iraqis to get it done.

So how is risking things to "come undone" gonig to help them.

On one level the surge appears to be helping, but that doesn't mean withdrawing troops wouldn't also provide a positive outcome.

Seems risky to me. Of course, I have no way to say you're not right, but, I guess, once again... if we're on a more successful path, why try the other way?

Look at Basra, where the British stood down and the Iraqis took the initiative (sure we had to provide support), but that was largely their effort --which they started without asking permission.

"Sure we had to provide support"-- but good for them. I guess the question is what kind of things needed to be in place for Basra to be "succesful"-- Meaning, what would have happened if they had no support?

I try to stay out of the discussion on this because it's so damned complicated, it's hard to talk about intelligently and I don't feel I'm qualified to make strong judgments. I'm just trying to broaden the discussion beyond "surge good" and "surge bad." Unfortunately, I feel that McCain's rhetoric is dumbing down the debate.

Well, we're all morons out here in the sticks, both guys need to keep it simple for us.

I think there are more important points in the debate between the two candidates. McCain favors a long term presence/permanent bases, no timelines for withdrawl, believes a strong democratic central government is possible, believes it is essential to the war on terror, and is fixated on the military components of the mission. Obama is for setting some clear timelines and moving out as quickly as possible, no permanent bases, would be open to a less strong central government (think federalism with oil revenue sharing), believes the stability of Iraq is important but not central to the war on terror, and is more balanced between the military, political, and humanitarian components of the mission.

This part, I'm just going to leave as, "Thanks for laying out the positions." Maybe if I get some time I'll dissect this a bit more... but.. interestingly, I really feel like there are good points on both sides of this. I think the bottom line is that I'd favor a flexible approach, and the both could be "right" but it sort of depends on "what happens next." You know?

That's a good question. I think it is both and they are interrelated. Allowing the Taliban to regain control would undo the good we have accomplished. We have been successful in keeping terrorist training bases/camps out of the country and that needs to remain a primary objective. I read another article from Time that also indicates that more troops and money won't do much unless the government stands up more. The main difference (I think based on what I've read) with Iraq is that there are fewer organized factions. We also aren't trying so hard to strong arm a particular form of democracy into place there. Oh, and the bid difference... oil!

Sort of glossing over again, but, you sort of illustrate the differing challenges with the "oil" comment. In Iraq you have the problem of maybe having a wealthy hostile/bad guy supporting regime with lots of ability to [censored] things up because they have money to spend. On the other hand, in Afghanistan, you have the problem of anarchy, because, frankly, the place is so damend poor, who'd bother to take control of the whole thing.

I think Obama was smart to start arguing for more troops in Afghanistan from a political perspective. It shows he?s not weak on terror at the same time of giving him a legit reason for removing troops from Iraq (although it doesn't play well with the anti-war part of his base). I?m not sure if it is the right perspective, but it will win him more votes than it will lose.

So, how do you (or anyone else, for that matter) feel personally about this position? I this is part of my point earlier? Should we change tactics to win an election? Not trying to accuse Obama of this (well, any more than you already did, I guess-- better yet, I'm not judging him for it, really).

Why does he need a legit reason for moving troops out of Iraq anyway? What happened to "we never should have been there in the first place."

Or on the other hand, should we be putting troops in Afghanistan rather than bringing them home? I mean, I'm not sure we have a better definition of what constitutes "victory" there then we do in Iraq? Is it just more needless money spent and putting Americans in harm's way?

I do think that raising troop levels in Iraq or Afghanistan is only a temporary solution and could be too little, too late

Its my hope that both are only temporary period.